The Petition to Make Chess a Sport in Canada

[Peter McKillop]

Did someone delete my post?

There seems to be more than one post gone, e.g. Pargat Perrer's post where he first claimed that large numbers of women have rape fantasies.

[Kerry Liles]

There seems to be more than one post gone, e.g. Pargat Perrer's post where he first claimed that large numbers of women have rape fantasies.

Yes. That is it for me folks... buh buh buh buh bye

[Bob Armstrong]

I applaud Henry Lam, owner of ChessTalk, for finally stepping in to maintain some standard to the posts allowed here.

This may involve a few hiccups, because Henry never introduced content control as Chess'n Math Association used to impose.

I hope not too many jump ship at this point........good moderation will clean up the board; should moderation become censorship, we can then all start complaining about that.

I am staying for the moment, and will give Henry a chance.

~ Bob A

[Brad Thomson]

...good moderation will clean up the board; should moderation become censorship, we can then all start complaining about that.

This is the philosophical/political debate over free speech. Where to draw the line(s) will always be a matter of debate. We choose our friends, our music, our religion... our opinions. Freedom.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Thoughts like this are the reason I'm against the petition. If the CFC gets funding, exactly zero dollars of it should be allocated to supporting champions. Every penny should be spent growing the grassroots of the game - buying chess equipment for schools or running large school tournaments. I'm sure this mom and her son are a nice person, but any support the CFC provides them benefits a total of one person and doesn't grow the game of chess one iota.

I think Olga is absolutely right about the huge currently unmet need the family she wrote about has, unlike the very small contribution each family would have to make to have a school tournament. Excellence amongst us needs to be boosted, and it sometimes needs charitable giving to do that...

[David Ottosen]

I think Olga is absolutely right about the huge currently unmet need the family she wrote about has, unlike the very small contribution each family would have to make to have a school tournament. Excellence amongst us needs to be boosted, and it sometimes needs charitable giving to do that...

I have no doubt that the financial cost of supporting an elite young player is substantial, just like the cost of supporting an elite young hockey player or ballet dancer or any other activity.

However, if we are asking for government funds, then to me those funds have to show wide benefit. I don't agree that sending one child (especially a U8) to an international tournament benefits anyone but that child (at best). I've never seen anything to indicate that supporting excellence leads to any growth in chess post 1972. Spraggett made the world semifinals, nothing. Canada finished fourth in the Olympiad, nothing.

What has grown chess in the last few years? Streamers enhancing the popularity of the game. Queen's gambit emphasizing the gender neutrality inherent in the game. People stuck at home.

[Henri Hughes]

I applaud Henry Lam, owner of ChessTalk, for finally stepping in to maintain some standard to the posts allowed here.

This may involve a few hiccups, because Henry never introduced content control as Chess'n Math Association used to impose.

I hope not too many jump ship at this point........good moderation will clean up the board; should moderation become censorship, we can then all start complaining about that.

I am staying for the moment, and will give Henry a chance.

~ Bob A

I simply have no patience for people like PP, Nor will I respect them for the sake of the sanctity an online forum. I do apologize to those who find any offence or anything of the sorts aside from him. Hes a plague to our game and our Canadian chess community and ill leave it at that.

[Henri Hughes]

I have no doubt that the financial cost of supporting an elite young player is substantial, just like the cost of supporting an elite young hockey player or ballet dancer or any other activity.

However, if we are asking for government funds, then to me those funds have to show wide benefit. I don't agree that sending one child (especially a U8) to an international tournament benefits anyone but that child (at best). I've never seen anything to indicate that supporting excellence leads to any growth in chess post 1972. Spraggett made the world semifinals, nothing. Canada finished fourth in the Olympiad, nothing.

What has grown chess in the last few years? Streamers enhancing the popularity of the game. Queen's gambit emphasizing the gender neutrality inherent in the game. People stuck at home.

David I do agree with you on how funding should be applied I think, we need a stronger foundation first before money can be handed out on the individual level. and on the topic of champions. the stronger the foundation the more players we will attract and thus, producing more Canadian talent.

I also dont have much affection for the online chess scene but I do appreciate that it has become more accessible to people around the world. Giving content to those who can afford coaching etc. improvement has Never been so available as it is now.

[Olga Mushtaler]

David Ottosen well, thanks for 'supporting". You are like a kid - starting to fight already about who should get the funding before you even get the funding. Well, let me make it clear for you. If you don't support the petition, NOBODY will get the funding. Not a kid. Not a club. Not a school.

[Olga Mushtaler]

Henri Hughes government has been funding other sports for a while. I'm sure they have a qualification system set in place. For sports clubs and individuals.

[David Ottosen]

David Ottosen well, thanks for 'supporting". You are like a kid - starting to fight already about who should get the funding before you even get the funding. Well, let me make it clear for you. If you don't support the petition, NOBODY will get the funding. Not a kid. Not a club. Not a school.

No need to be condescending.

Fact of the matter is: CFC as well as provincial organizations have tried for decades to get funding. Every once in a while, they manage to succeed and suddenly flush with cash, the organization decides to host a GM tournament or send individuals to elite tournaments, and what happens next is the funding disappears with no lasting growth or impact on chess.

Providing a clear business case and plan for how you plan to use the funding is absolutely critical in both getting it in the first place, and in making it sustainable and effective. Getting funding and subsequently losing it because of a lack of those things actually ends up being harmful as future efforts to raise funds are tainted by the memory of "wait a minute, the last time we gave this organization money, they used it to send a 7 year old to Europe for a chess tourney were they finished 73rd place. Think I'll pass on their request this time." To your point - sometimes, getting funding *can* be worse than not getting funding.

So, it's not me "fighting" - you're the one asking for my support on something, then I have the right to ask if you're doing it in a way I agree with and think will be effective. I don't know you. I haven't seen your plan for how you want to spend a potential funding. So no, I'm not going to support it without that just because "give money to chess".

[Peter McKillop]

....
Providing a clear business case and plan for how you plan to use the funding is absolutely critical ....

Excellent post, David!

[Bob Armstrong]

Required: a clear business case and plan for how you plan to use the funding (David).

I agree.....and I'd add: the plan should show the proportion of funding going to grassroots promotion, and that to support elite chess. And this can be done without knowing the amount of funding - it is simply an indication of CFC priorities.

And I do support a government designation of chess as a "sport", as well as a game, an art, and an overwhelming boggle!

Bob A

[John Brown]

Olga may be too young to know about the Trillium Donation to the Ontario Chess Association President and how the money was used. The Trillium Donations did not give any more money after that situation. I'm not sure who would provide funding now. I disagree that the funding should be given to elite players they have many ways to make money on their own and they can get sponsors like Red Bull as some of the Americans have done also if they are a streamer or a coach they make enough money. The donations should be taken to improve Chess Clubs and the chess clubs would have regular matches between each other. The clubs would provide lessons inside tournaments and promoting the pros of chess to the community.There is no need to use the money to send players anywhere. If they need money to go then do like Jean Herbert did and ask for support. He got it to go to Seniors event. I do not really want the government to support chess as we all know that the ones who need the support will never get the money. What chess needs is corporate support where a company endorses chess and you get the perks of being that sponsor. Look at all the big names in sports that are sponsored by Nike ,Puma ,Red Bull ,Adidas , Tim Horton's etc. The two things that chess players of the past did was smoke and drink coffee. But the CFC never approached Big tobacco companies or Tim Horton's for support. And when organizers approached big companies and the companies offered trophies, The organizers shy away.
You need to make a stronger platform than just that chess is mental and physical. It needs to prove that chess makes a better all round person.The majority of chess players play for fun. How many of those fun players will be sports superstars?

[Vlad Drkulec]

I am sure that IF this effort is successful, we will need to make a business case for the funds that will come to the chess community. We don't need a business case now. We need some political will to take the next step now.

On my wish list is

Funding for people with disabilities and the blind.

Chess in Schools.

Chess in prisons and as an intervention in children at risk for becoming trapped in the criminal justice system. Patricia Gamliel has been doing work in this area as has FIDE.

Chess in Indigenous communities particularly the young.

It would be nice if we could step back and look at what we are doing now. Whether this current effort succeeds or not there is going to be more money in chess. An increase in popularity and participation means more memberships and rating fees so success does not hinge on just this effort.

We could certainly get more money from the government if we approached it in an organized way. As a non-profit we are eligible to apply for funds for a variety of purposes. We don't do any of that because we largely rely on volunteers who are already stretched thin in their time commitments.

We are already tapping into "government" money through our work with tourism bureaus. That money goes to tournament organizers for the most part which means that they will not lose money as has been the case in the past.